@inproceedings{ho-etal-2026-reassessing,
    title = "Reassessing Extractive {QA} Datasets at Scale: {LLM}-as-a-Judge and In-Depth Analyses",
    author = "Ho, Xanh  and
      Huang, Jiahao  and
      Boudin, Florian  and
      Aizawa, Akiko",
    editor = "Mille, Simon  and
      Gehrmann, Sebastian  and
      Schmidtov{\'a}, Patr{\'i}cia  and
      Du{\v{s}}ek, Ond{\v{r}}ej  and
      Fadaee, Marzieh  and
      Lo, Kyle  and
      Santus, Enrico  and
      Stanovsky, Gabriel",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics ({GEM})",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, USA",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl-workshops/2026.gem-main.9/",
    pages = "84--101",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-423-1",
    abstract = "Extractive QA tasks are commonly evaluated using Exact Match (EM) and F1-score, but these metrics often fail to reflect true model performance. Recent studies have proposed using large language models (LLMs) as judges (LLM-as-a-judge), yet they often lack comprehensive evaluation across datasets and overlook key factors such as sensitivity to answer types, prompt variations, and self-preference bias.In this work, we conduct a systematic study of LLM-as-a-judge across four extractive QA datasets and various prompt variations, assessing multiple LLM families in both answering and judging roles. Our results show that LLM-as-a-judge judgments correlate much more strongly with human evaluations than EM (0.22) and F1 (0.40), achieving correlations up to 0.85 with open-source models.Further analysis reveals that LLM-as-a-judge performs particularly well on number-related answers but faces challenges with more complex types, such as job titles. Contrary to findings in other NLP tasks, we observe no self-preference bias, even when the same model serves as both QA model and judge. Finally, we find that prompt phrasing has minimal impact, and zero-shot, context-free judging often yields the best evaluation performance."
}